agent_capabilities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only discovery operation but never states it is safe/read-only, nor does it mention required runtime state or error conditions. It does enumerate the response contents, partially compensating for the missing output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence led by the verb, with the resource list following. It is long and list-heavy but each item conveys a distinct returned artifact, so little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a zero-parameter schema and no output schema, the description does the work of describing what the call returns, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It lacks only explicit safety/prerequisite notes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is required beyond the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Discover') and a concrete set of resources (agent runtime, session, harnesses, logical agents, IDs, lifecycle states). It is clearly an introspection tool, distinguishing it from siblings like agent_get or capabilities, though the dense enumeration of return contents blurs focus slightly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling capabilities or agent_get tools, and no prerequisites stated. The agent is left to infer that this is the broad runtime-inventory call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.